His analysis is inaccurate and flawed. Florida did indeed adopt its privacy clause (Article 1, Section 23) in 1980, but Simon ignores the context of the time and the intent of the drafters of the amendment and the people who voted for it.

The amendment was adopted after the events of Watergate, the revelation of widespread CIA wiretapping and the explosion in the use of fax machines, bank wire transfers and TCP/IP (transmission control protocol/internet protocol).

Debate on the original drafters and the people who adopted the privacy amendment was focused exclusively on informational privacy. No one, not even opponents of the privacy clause, mentioned nor showed any interest in the privacy clause being used to grant other rights, such as a right to abortion for minor girls without parental consent.

The 1980 Legislature that proposed the amendment added language which states “(this) section shall not be construed to limit the public’s right of access to public records and meetings as provided by law.” This makes it even clearer that the right of privacy was informational in nature.

The FPRA seeks to return our privacy clause to its original intent – safeguarding our informational privacy and limiting the government’s ability to collect and disclose personal and private information about us. The amendment’s drafters and members of the public who approved the measure understood its purpose to be that. Given the prevalent use of various forms of technology in our daily lives, it is a matter of ever-increasing importance and one of widespread concern for the public.

By ignoring the purpose of the privacy clause, the Florida Supreme Court has failed in its duty. In the 37 years since the adoption of the privacy clause, the court has cited Article 1, Section 23 in 52 cases. In only one of those cases did the court grant a right to informational privacy. Incredibly, it was not even the person asking for his privacy to be protected that was granted it.

While the Florida Supreme Court has ignored informational privacy, it has used the privacy clause to grant rights that we already have in the federal Constitution.

NEWSLETTERS

Get the Florida Voices newsletter delivered to your inbox

We're sorry, but something went wrong

Florida Voices tells the stories of everyday Floridians, examining what issues matter most to them in the Sunshine State.

Simon tries to use these cases in an attempt to create fear. He makes statements like "(abortion) rights that we have enjoyed and relied upon for decades will disappear.” Any honest first-year law student can tell you that Roe v. Wade established a fundamental right to abortion for women since 1973. Furthermore, even if we never had a state privacy right, there would still be a right to abortion.

The FPRA is needed because we must redirect the court’s attention and assure our right to informational privacy. The people of Florida do “deserve honest analysis” of FPRA, but Simon – with the consistently leftist ACLU spin – does not provide it. Instead, he purposely seeks to scare you into opposing FPRA with sweeping, false claims.

The truth is existing federal privacy rights robustly protect virtually all of the privacy interests ruled on by Florida courts, except informational privacy, the reason for which the privacy amendment was originally created.

Stemberger is an attorney from the Orlando area and president of the Florida Family Policy Council.

Guest commentaries

A guest commentary can be 600 words or less on a topical subject. Authors must have considerable experience, public involvement or expertise in the subject matter. A guest commentary may be returned to the author with a recommendation to resubmit it as a Letter to the Editor within the guidelines for letters. It is recommended that authors receive preclearance before submission; call 239-435-3457.